Morality of a preemptive war for defense

[Phlegmak]

Imagine this:

Some other nation has invented a weapon which can defeat all of your country's military. The attack is undetectable. Once it happens, you've lost. Not only does it destroy your military, but it kills a substantial portion of your people. (This is NOT mutually assured destruction, obviously, since the attack is undetectable.)

Your country has the same weapon.

So, is it moral to preemptively attack the other nation to ensure that it is defeated and cannot attack your nation? Or is it better to live in mutual peace and assume your neighbor won't attack you?

This particular scenario was already explored in the book The Killing Star and it's not quite so impossible as it sounds.

 

[BaneBlade]

Not enough data.
We already live in such a world, considering that for example the USA could smuggle nuclear warheads in all big french cities and detonate them, or vice versa.
If we could expect Ira....i mean, your hypothetic country to attack, that's an completely different game.

 

[MobBoss]

Imagine this:

Some other nation has invented a weapon which can defeat all of your country's military. The attack is undetectable. Once it happens, you've lost. Not only does it destroy your military, but it kills a substantial portion of your people. (This is NOT mutually assured destruction, obviously, since the attack is undetectable.)

Your country has the same weapon.

So, is it moral to preemptively attack the other nation to ensure that it is defeated and cannot attack your nation? Or is it better to live in mutual peace and assume your neighbor won't attack you?

This particular scenario was already explored in the book The Killing Star and it's not quite so impossible as it sounds.

It depends. Is the other nation hostile to yours and is the use of 'the weapon' virtually assured if they gain access to it? If so, then its a moral action. If not, then its possibly immoral.

Case in point. If Canada were to develop nuclear weapons....who would care? But if Iran does....the whole world gets worried.

 

[wicshade]

well if by being the first nation to use the weapon, you destroy the other countries weapon and they are unable to attack you then i would say perhaps. But i would not just destroy a friendly country just to gain supremecy.

 

[Bill3000]

It's immoral because the death of all humans is morally good.

 

[JohnRM]

Imagine this:

Some other nation has invented a weapon which can defeat all of your country's military. The attack is undetectable. Once it happens, you've lost. Not only does it destroy your military, but it kills a substantial portion of your people. (This is NOT mutually assured destruction, obviously, since the attack is undetectable.)

Your country has the same weapon.

So, is it moral to preemptively attack the other nation to ensure that it is defeated and cannot attack your nation? Or is it better to live in mutual peace and assume your neighbor won't attack you?

This particular scenario was already explored in the book The Killing Star and it's not quite so impossible as it sounds.

Disarmament talks should be attempted first, but if they are ultimately unsuccessful then I would remove the threat, unless the other country was the UK, France, or another ally.

 

[Phlegmak]

This thread has nothing to do with Iran, if anyone cares.

In The Killing Star, near-light-speed projectiles were launched at Earth from ~20 light years away. Earth never detected the projectiles until they were in the solar system, and by then it was too late. In the book, 99% of humanity died, and the survivors escaped the solar system and wanted revenge, which might take 1000 years or more.

We already live in such a world, considering that for example the USA could smuggle nuclear warheads in all big french cities and detonate them, or vice versa.

That's close, but the smuggling is still detectable.

 

[El_Machinae]

Phlegmak is capable of getting a weapon that can instantly kill me without any hope of MAD. I can also get such a weapon. If I learn that Phleg has such a weapon, how should I act?

How are nations different from people in this scenario?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Be nice to him.



Unless he's a jerk, in which case...

 

[CartesianFart]

Imagine this:

Ok

Some other nation has invented a weapon which can defeat all of your country's military. The attack is undetectable. Once it happens, you've lost. Not only does it destroy your military, but it kills a substantial portion of your people. (This is NOT mutually assured destruction, obviously, since the attack is undetectable.)

Ok. If it did happened, why would I care since everything around me is ruinously destroyed?

Kind of odd that the question is somewhat like Rambuchan have once said, "Look at it in a Civlight," or something like that.

I guess this question shows how a person like the OP plays too much Civilization's video games and then go to some Off-topic forum and ask some silly hypothetical scenario question with elements of "your military" and "your people" as you are some kind of virtual President of your own fictional Nation.

Your country has the same weapon.

So, is it moral to preemptively attack the other nation to ensure that it is defeated and cannot attack your nation? Or is it better to live in mutual peace and assume your neighbor won't attack you?

I think your problem is choosing the wrong word. I would not say "moral" but "advantageous" as the better choice of word to use.

Of course I am me and you are you.

This particular scenario was already explored in the book The Killing Star and it's not quite so impossible as it sounds.

Now we are being realistic are we?

 

[Jawz II]

Unsure peace?

There is no other kind. Nothing is sure in life.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I voted for preemptive attack but my weasel answer would be to make it so it would be (economically) suicidal for the other country to destroy mine.

 

[Elrohir]

Imagine this:

Some other nation has invented a weapon which can defeat all of your country's military. The attack is undetectable. Once it happens, you've lost. Not only does it destroy your military, but it kills a substantial portion of your people. (This is NOT mutually assured destruction, obviously, since the attack is undetectable.)

Your country has the same weapon.

So, is it moral to preemptively attack the other nation to ensure that it is defeated and cannot attack your nation? Or is it better to live in mutual peace and assume your neighbor won't attack you?

This particular scenario was already explored in the book The Killing Star and it's not quite so impossible as it sounds.

It depends. If this is a nation that we have a long history of getting along with, or at least not killing each other, and is rather stable, like the UK or Germany or even France, then I say live in peace. But if we're talking Iran or Pakistan or some other unstable country which can't be trusted long term to remain our ally....well, I think it would be better to strike preemptively.

 

[Bill3000]

It depends. If this is a nation that we have a long history of getting along with, or at least not killing each other, and is rather stable, like the UK or Germany or even France, then I say live in peace.

*psst* *Chamberlain*

 

[Elrohir]

*psst* *Chamberlain*

Well, if an anti-Semite with a little mustache becomes Chancellor of Germany, we would obviously have to reevaluate.

 

[nc-1701]

This is a one iteration prisoners dillemma. There is only one logical choice attack without further delay...


But if we are talking about morals instead of logic then I suppose it's differant for everyone...

I'de probably take the logical route, not the moral one because it's not a leaders job to be moral. It's their job to be logical, and do what is objectively best for their people.

 

[Che Guava]

Case in point. If Canada were to develop nuclear weapons....who would care?

ha HA....the plan is going perfectly, no-one suspects a thing. Soon, with enough uranium we can finally....wait a second, am I thinking this, or typing this?!! Oh crap!

 

[nivi]

If it is in my rational best self interest...

 

[SG-17]

Attack first, make sure you show them, you wont tolerate opposition.

 

[Phlegmak]

Attack first, make sure you show them, you wont tolerate opposition.

Well, if you attack, there might not be anyone left to which you can say "that'll learn ya to mess with us!"